Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-382 | December 28, 2020 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

John L. Tompkins

Tompkins Law

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Myriam Serrano

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Antonio Lee Allen,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff.

December 28, 2020

Court of Appeals Case No.

20A-CR-382

Appeal from the Marion Superior

Court

The Honorable Barbara Crawford,

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G01-1804-MR-13459

Bradford, Chief Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-382 | December 28, 2020 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] On April 15, 2016, Antonio Lee Allen and David Sanders engaged in an 

altercation that escalated to multiple gunshots fired. Sanders was struck by at 

least three of the gunshots—one in the thigh, one in the torso, and the other in 

the head near his right ear. Sanders died as a result of the multiple gunshot 

wounds. Allen was subsequently charged with and convicted of murder. On 

appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. 

We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 15, 2016, Allen and Sanders engaged in an altercation outside of a 

barbershop located near the intersection of Gateway Drive and High School 

Road in Indianapolis. After the altercation appeared to end, Sanders left the 

area on foot and Allen drove away in a white Toyota Camry. A few moments 

later, Sanders approached the driver’s window of the Camry and engaged in a 

short conversation with Allen. As Sanders turned away, Allen fired multiple 

gunshots, three of which struck Sanders—one in the thigh, one in the torso, and 

the other in the head near his right ear. Sanders died as a result of the multiple 

gunshot wounds.

[3] On April 25, 2018, the State charged Allen with murder. Following a jury trial, 

Allen was found guilty of murder. On January 24, 2020, the trial court 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-382 | December 28, 2020 Page 3 of 7

sentenced Allen to a fifty-five-year term of imprisonment in the Department of 

Correction.

Discussion and Decision

[4] Allen contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction for 

murder.

When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a 

conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is 

the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess 

witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether 

it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, 

when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, 

they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling. 

Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a 

reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence 

overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The 

evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn 

from it to support the verdict.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146–47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and 

quotations omitted). Stated differently, “‘[w]e affirm the judgment unless no 

reasonable factfinder could find the defendant guilty.’” Mardis v. State, 72 

N.E.3d 936, 938 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 

958 (Ind. 2016)).

[5] Indiana Code section 35-42-1-1(1) provides that a person who “knowingly or 

intentionally kills another human being ... commits murder, a felony.” Thus, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-382 | December 28, 2020 Page 4 of 7

in order to convict Allen of murder, the State was required to prove that he 

knowingly or intentionally killed Sanders. In challenging the sufficiency of the 

evidence, Allen does not dispute that Sanders was murdered. Allen instead 

claims the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the 

shooter.

[6] Various witnesses testified at trial regarding their observations just prior to and 

at the time of the shooting. Latansy Hutchins, who resided on Gateway Drive 

on the day of the shooting, went outside after she heard gunshots. She observed 

Sanders running, “trying to jump in people’s cars,” and heard him say “man 

I’m trying to get out of here.” Tr. Vol. II p. 120. She observed a white Toyota 

Camry that was being driven by a black man with either “braids or dreadlocks,” 

approach Sanders and lower its window slightly. Tr. Vol. II p. 114. She saw a 

gun “peeking out” of the driver’s window and heard at least three more 

gunshots. Tr. Vol. II p. 115. According to Hutchins’s testimony, the first 

struck Sanders in the thigh, the second hit a traffic sign, and the third struck 

Sanders by the ear.1 Sanders collapsed after being struck by the ear and the 

blood coming from the wound “looked like a water fountain.” Tr. Vol. II p. 

115. Hutchins called 911 to report the shooting and provided dispatch with the 

license-plate number

2

for the white Camry.

1

 Hutchins testified that the second bullet hit a traffic sign. It is unclear from the record which bullet struck 

Sanders in the torso.

2

 The evidence establishes that the Camry was registered to Allen’s son. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-382 | December 28, 2020 Page 5 of 7

[7] In the moments before Sanders was killed, Aura Morales, who was working in 

a restaurant located in the vicinity of the barbershop, heard “screams” coming 

from outside and, upon looking outside to see the source of the noise, observed 

Allen and Sanders engaging in a physical and verbal altercation. Tr. Vol. II p. 

148. After going back inside the restaurant, she heard a gunshot. She looked 

towards the sound and observed Sanders running. A white Toyota Camry 

passed in front of her and, with “squealing” tires, then ran a red light. Tr. Vol. 

II p. 153. Morales heard more gunshots when the vehicle passed Sanders. 

Immediately after hearing the shots, Morales saw Sanders lying on the ground.

[8] Just prior to the shooting, Melanie Gray, a passenger in a vehicle being driven 

by Brandon Young, observed Sanders and the driver of a light-colored vehicle 

engage in a short conversation. She also observed the driver of the vehicle 

holding a gun. As Sanders walked away from the vehicle, Gray heard “at least 

two” gunshots. Tr. Vol. III p. 14. Immediately after hearing the gunshots, the 

vehicle took “off fast” and Sanders stumbled and fell. Tr. Vol. III p. 15. While 

Gray did not get a good look at the physical features of the driver, she could see 

that the driver was an African-American male.

[9] Young also observed Sanders speaking to the driver of a white vehicle and 

heard a “pop, pop, pop” sound. Tr. Vol. III p. 180. Immediately following the 

popping sound, Sanders “turned and fell,” and the driver of the white vehicle 

“drove off real quick.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 179, 182. Young did not see a gun, but 

because he had observed that the shots came from the white vehicle, he 

“assumed” the driver was the shooter. Tr. Vol. III p. 180.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-382 | December 28, 2020 Page 6 of 7

[10] While Allen denied being the shooter, he admitted during a police interview 

that he had been “beefing” with Sanders. State’s Ex. 3, 10:30. Allen also 

admitted that he had driven away from the barbershop in a white Camry 

following his altercation with Sanders and that he had driven through the 

intersection where Sanders was fatally shot about the same time as the 

shooting. Further, although some of the witnesses indicated that there might 

have been more than one person in the Camry at the time of the shooting, Allen 

indicated that he had been the only individual in the vehicle following his 

altercation with Sanders. 

[11] Allen argues that the State’s evidence regarding identity of the shooter “points 

to a light skinned African American male in his twenties or thirties with short 

hair or a fade. That evidence does not create a reasonable inference that Allen, 

a dark skinned, heavy set black male with long braids in his forties, was the 

driver/shooter.” Appellant’s Br. pp. 13–14. He further argues that none of the 

witnesses, who gave varying physical descriptions of the driver of the white 

Camry, identified him as the shooter and that the time stamp on a security 

video from a nearby apartment complex suggests that he had driven through the 

intersection in question approximately ten minutes before the shooting.

[12] “Recalling our standard of review, the fact finder is best positioned to judge the 

credibility of these witnesses, is free to credit or discredit testimony, and weigh 

conflicting evidence.” Tharp v. State, 942 N.E.2d 814, 816 (Ind. 2011). 

Furthermore, “[a] conviction for murder may be sustained on circumstantial 

evidence alone if that circumstantial evidence supports a reasonable inference of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-382 | December 28, 2020 Page 7 of 7

guilt.” Fry v. State, 25 N.E.3d 237, 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Lacey v. 

State, 755 N.E.2d 576, 578 (Ind. 2001)). 

[13] In this case, the State presented evidence that (1) Allen had engaged in an 

altercation with Sanders outside a barbershop in the moments before the 

shooting; (2) Allen admitted that he had driven the white Camry through the 

intersection where Sanders was shot about the same time as the shooting; (3) 

Hutchins, who gave the most detailed description of the driver of the vehicle, 

testified that the Camry was being driven by a black man with either braids or 

dreadlocks; (4) the Camry was registered to Allen’s son; and (5) Allen claimed 

that he was alone in the vehicle when he drove it away from the barbershop 

following his altercation with Sanders. The witness testimony, considered 

together with Allen’s admissions, supports a reasonable inference of guilt. As 

such, a reasonable jury could conclude that Allen was the person who shot and

killed Sanders. The evidence, therefore, is sufficient to sustain Allen’s 

conviction. Allen’s claim to the contrary is merely a request that we reweigh 

the evidence, which we will not do. Mardis, 72 N.E.3d at 938 (providing that in 

challenging the State’s evidence proving his identity as the person who shot and 

killed the victim, Mardis “simply seeks to have this court reweigh [the 

witness’s] testimony and reassess his credibility, which we will not do.”).

[14] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Kirsch, J., and May, J., concur.